A number of the paintings- such as Emperor, LeBelle Casade, Cockfight [p.87], and Shanghai [p.83]-show complex scenes. Were these done from sketches, or do you paint from photographs- or from drawings made from photographs- some of the time?I paint mostly from real life. It has to start with that. Real people, real street scenes, behind-the-curtain scenes, live models, paintings, photographs, staged setups, architecture, grids, graphic design. Whatever it takes me to work. What I'm trying to bring out in complex scenes, landscapes, or personality clashes- I do in a lot of different ways. I have the cause and effect in mind from the beginning to the end. But it has to start with something tangible...

Well how honorable he finally mentioned photographs but really? I paint mostly from real life? Is this guy serious? So far we have found 6 photos from one flickr account and 4 from other people... let me count how many are in this series...There are 24. None of these photographs are credited. Not even the copyrighted ones. Rather distasteful...

The photo of the Japanese mafia men is not credited. Richard Prince makes some statements at the end of the catalog about the paintings and especially about this one. It's called Big Brother and he is trying to guess where it is from. He guesses it is not from Mainland China. He should have guessed it was from Bruce Gliden. The last statement in the book is "Every attempt has been made to locate the copyright holders for the materials in this book." Ummm, bullshit.

Last edited by Milkcow on Sat September 24th, 2011, 23:22 GMT, edited 1 time in total.

A number of the paintings- such as Emperor, LeBelle Casade, Cockfight [p.87], and Shanghai [p.83]-show complex scenes. Were these done from sketches, or do you paint from photographs- or from drawings made from photographs- some of the time?I paint mostly from real life. It has to start with that. Real people, real street scenes, behind-the-curtain scenes, live models, paintings, photographs, staged setups, architecture, grids, graphic design. Whatever it takes me to work. What I'm trying to bring out in complex scenes, landscapes, or personality clashes- I do in a lot of different ways. I have the cause and effect in mind from the beginning to the end. But it has to start with something tangible...

LOL, sounds like the interviewer is really trying to get this out in the open but he just won't have any of it.

A number of the paintings- such as Emperor, LeBelle Casade, Cockfight [p.87], and Shanghai [p.83]-show complex scenes. Were these done from sketches, or do you paint from photographs- or from drawings made from photographs- some of the time?I paint mostly from real life. It has to start with that. Real people, real street scenes, behind-the-curtain scenes, live models, paintings, photographs, staged setups, architecture, grids, graphic design. Whatever it takes me to work. What I'm trying to bring out in complex scenes, landscapes, or personality clashes- I do in a lot of different ways. I have the cause and effect in mind from the beginning to the end. But it has to start with something tangible...

The last statement in the book is "Every attempt has been made to locate the copyright holders for the materials in this book." Ummm, bullshit.

This is the part that disappoints me. He shouldn't have to make a statement like this. For Godsake, it's the 21 st century! Notions of "copyright" went out with the ark. These are old fashioned concepts that arose before the internet existed. The internet renders concepts of ownership, obsolete.

Joined: Fri March 2nd, 2007, 03:32 GMTPosts: 118Location: New York City

I don't post much, but just want to throw in my 2 cents. My longtime "quasi-ex-wife" has been a painter for most of her life. She often uses photos as a source. I never saw that as her being less of an artist. On the contrary; this would amaze me. She found something deep in the photo & turned it into something else. Of course, she does other types of paintings (as Dylan does), but this is not stealing. I've been writing art criticism for this paper in NYC for about 3 years now (even though I'm a musician) & in my visits to hundreds of galleries have never seen a plaque next to a painting detailing a source photo. The funny thing is that a lot of painters that I've interviewed have told me how they based their painting on a picture. The art world isn't like the music world; well maybe it is in a way, but this isn't a big deal. As was posted previously, no copyright holder (weren't they public domain anyway?) made an issue out of this. As far as Gagosian having a press release that says Dylan did this on his recent Asian tour- documenting his travels, well that's Gagosian being Gagosian.It's funny to see such a tiff being raised here.

Sometimes reading this board is like living in the 19th century. What year did Duchamp paint the mustache on the Mona Lisa, 1920 or so? I mean, honestly ...Notions of "copyright" went out with the ark.

It's just not that cut-and-dried. The sculptor Jeff Koons was successfully sued for his 'string of puppies' work that he based on a photo image he saw on a greeting card. His defense that it was a parody was thrown out because the source image was not famous enough to comment on specifically! Not only did the sculptor have to pay a large monetary settlement, but after shipping three of the sculptures to buyers, had to ship the remaining one to the photographer.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_v._Koons

Bendik wrote:

My longtime "quasi-ex-wife" has been a painter for most of her life. She often uses photos as a source. I never saw that as her being less of an artist. On the contrary; this would amaze me. She found something deep in the photo & turned it into something else. Of course, she does other types of paintings (as Dylan does), but this is not stealing

It becomes an issue when the derivative (legally speaking) work is sold for moolah. Some of the images in question are on the Getty and Magnum sites, and nothing on those sites is considered public domain. Peter Groves, a 'solicitor specializing in trade marks, copyright, designs and patents' wrote upon seeing the Siamese Chess image, "Surely whatever definition of plagiarism you use, this is it: worse, without the copyright owner's consent, this is the most egregious infringement - in English law for sure (see Baumann v Fussell [1978] RPC 485), and I guess in most other countries' copyright laws. I hope he did get any necessary permission!" http://bobdylanencyclopedia.blogspot.com/2011/09/that-bob-dylan-asia-series-again.html

I don't post much, but just want to throw in my 2 cents. My longtime "quasi-ex-wife" has been a painter for most of her life. She often uses photos as a source. I never saw that as her being less of an artist. On the contrary; this would amaze me. She found something deep in the photo & turned it into something else. Of course, she does other types of paintings (as Dylan does), but this is not stealing. I've been writing art criticism for this paper in NYC for about 3 years now (even though I'm a musician) & in my visits to hundreds of galleries have never seen a plaque next to a painting detailing a source photo. The funny thing is that a lot of painters that I've interviewed have told me how they based their painting on a picture. The art world isn't like the music world; well maybe it is in a way, but this isn't a big deal. As was posted previously, no copyright holder (weren't they public domain anyway?) made an issue out of this. As far as Gagosian having a press release that says Dylan did this on his recent Asian tour- documenting his travels, well that's Gagosian being Gagosian.It's funny to see such a tiff being raised here.

Photographs are not just art, they are documents. Boo on Dylan on this one. Give even a small credit to the person who pressed the shutter. What, he doesn't want anyone to be famous because his "stamp" will be linked to the photographer? And it's not even about fame, but self-respect and respect to the original source of the image.

Bendik... that is very true, but your wife changed her image...these are pretty much exact...basing a painting on a photo is extremely common...but identically copying it is another issue. Taking a photo for an inspiration is great. Turning it into something else is art. This is a photo painted exactly the way it was taken. You have to read this interview and the guy is asking Bob about certain details and why he did what he did.... Bob gives this explanation and all the while if you compare it to the original photo, it's painted that way because that's how it appeared in the original photo. Regardless as I said before... I want the other 3 books and I can't wait to see these paintings next week.

You make me want this book even more than I do already. How much is postage inside the US?

Also, the "Scribe" (center photo below) still needs to be found - certainly that must be taken from a photo as well? The painted arc around the image suggests a stereoview image probably, but so far I've not found it:http://www.gagosian.com/exhibitions/201 ... /images/3/

rather distasteful, huh... well it's all rather distasteful isn't it... it hasn't stopped you... after a while I just roll my eyes

okay...odd post...what's your beef with me? Do we know each other? Why do I make you roll your eyes? Brand new poster... you're a week old here...September 16 you joined and I make you roll your eyes already? WOW so soon!!! and sooo odd.

the paintings look great so far, and i flat out don't believe in any kind of creative copyright and especially not in regards to photos - the idea that anybody could 'own' a picture seems ridiculous to me - so i have no problem.

this isn't the same as supporting piracy, i think artists should get paid for their work, but there shouldn't be any restrictions on what other people then do with their work.

You make me want this book even more than I do already. How much is postage inside the US?

Also, the "Scribe" (center photo below) still needs to be found - certainly that must be taken from a photo as well? The painted arc around the image suggests a stereoview image probably, but so far I've not found it:http://www.gagosian.com/exhibitions/201 ... /images/3/

I never saw this... sorry

The postage in the us was between 4-6 dollars... I can't remember.... it wasn't crazy. What is the shipping to Europe?

I have no idea about the scribe...actually I haven't found any of bob's paintings in photos.... everyone else has.... lol

Shipping to Europe is 90-99 $ depending on the location, at least that's what the gallery shop charges. I want it, but.... and they say you can't even buy it at the gallery itself, only through their online store.

Shipping to Europe is 90-99 $ depending on the location, at least that's what the gallery shop charges. I want it, but.... and they say you can't even buy it at the gallery itself, only through their online store.

wait...is that shipping with the book or is that shipping and then you have to pay for the book...the book is 80 bucks... 90-99 with the book is a normal shipping price or rather cheap...the book is hard coverIf the book is 80 and then shipping is 90 -99 that is robbery, but if it is with the book that's reasonable and rather inexpensive

the paintings look great so far, and i flat out don't believe in any kind of creative copyright and especially not in regards to photos - the idea that anybody could 'own' a picture seems ridiculous to me - so i have no problem.

this isn't the same as supporting piracy, i think artists should get paid for their work, but there shouldn't be any restrictions on what other people then do with their work.

Ahhh, the voice of reason.

Anyway, I have said enough already on this ridiculous topic. I refuse to waste any further eyesight on such nonsense.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot]

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum